I would be reviewing the next Coen Brothers movie, but, since I couldn’t find it, I figured I’d try something a little different. Oh, Hello On Broadway is a filmed live performance from, well… Broadway. While there is the advantage of having a live audience, there are plenty of challenges recorded productions like this face in the translation to screen. For example, when something goes wrong, there’s no going back. Especially in a production that is largely improvised, breaking character was inevitable. John Mulaney is sheer comedic force, because at almost every one of his lines, Nick Kroll was evidently holding laughter back. Largely, the jokes were funny, but I found that at the third act, things got a little too over the top.

The humour itself is incredibly smart. Even though there are two characters, they are established well at the beginning, and the way they bounce off one another is wonderful. Granted, these two characters were created by Mulaney and Kroll a long time ago, but in a lot of ways their ignorant nature works even better now. Oh, Hello takes the parody concept of film, and brings it to theatre very well. They have a play within a play format, where the two characters play, albeit the same character, but it allows for the obviously bad writing to be comedic after the base line characters are established. It sounds confusing, but it really isn’t. It’s mindless fun, but it comes from very smart comedy. A brilliant example of this is a segment of the show I wanted to bring up called “Too much tuna.” Each night, a different celebrity is brought onstage. In Netflix’s recording, the guest was Steve Martin. From this interview alone, it is clear the both Mulaney and Kroll are huge fans of all the comedy legends they bring on stage, allowing some fun chemistry being that the characters feel the exact opposite way.

All in all, Oh, Hello on Broadway is an incredibly smart comedic show, often juggling multiple comedic styles in a seamless fashion. However, being that it is a recorded live performance, there are problems with it, and the story does go over the top at times. Still, that doesn’t mean that Oh, Hello isn’t a remarkably fun watch. 8.9/10

As my time with Terry Gilliam films comes to an end, it may have made sense for me to watch Don Quixote again. Instead, I thought it might be more interesting to watch the documentary following the film’s troubled history. Like many shows of the past, such as Macbeth, it seems that a Don Quixote movie was cursed from the beginning. Lost in La Mancha briefly mentions that Orson Wells also tried making a movie that followed a similar path. Focusing on a director, such as Gilliam, that faces such a struggle against Hollywood makes the story even more impactful. It’s interesting, and almost poetic, to see the idea of making this film slowly bring Terry Gilliam into a state of insanity. Everything gets thrown at them for this filming. And I mean, everything. I’m sure if I looked up ‘signs of the apocalypse’ on Google, almost every sign would have come to this film.

As for the method of telling the story itself, this is the only place I have an issue with the documentary. The story itself is interesting, which is always convenient for a documentary, because you never know what’s going to happen. But my issue itself comes with the way things could have been built upon. I can’t even remember where the film was decided to be scrapped, one of the most important things in the film. I definitely would have liked seeing a bit more of what happened after the cancellation. Not just in Gilliam, but in everyone else. Part of the production’s issue was that there were quite a few over-ambitious people that caused the film to be focused on very specific things, as opposed to the large picture. I also would have liked if the documentary crew followed Gilliam as he started working on getting the script back from the insurance agency. I understand that the documentary crew can’t capture everything, but, there were also things that were dwelled upon just a little too much.

Overall, I truly enjoyed Lost in La Mancha, it’s premise shows how quickly everything can go wrong in film shoots, but, faces issues that come with actually filming as the events are happening. 7.6/10

Empire of the Sun marks an interesting transitioning point in Steven Spielberg’s career. It bridges the gap between being full of childish wonder, but also dealing with some more adult themes. It follows a young rich boy (Christian Bale) in Japan after he loses his parents. He then finds himself under the care of a retired war veteran (John Malkovich). Although I truly think that the film made some awesome decisions, I found it to be forgettable to say the least. And I think, if anything, that’s due to the movie’s long runtime (2 and a half hours) and the repetitive plot during the second act. Which is unfortunate, the movie does a lot of amazing scenes. There are some incredible shots, great music, somewhat compelling morals, and perhaps most interestingly, it wasn’t racist. I was worried, being that the last Spielberg movie to featuring an asian race, it was Temple of Doom, and we all know how that went down. So, there’s a lot to love here, but I just felt like something was always missing.

Part of my issue, as I said, was the film’s 2 and a half hour run time. This can be fine, there are other movies with long run times that have perfectly memorable plots. However, Empire of the Sun struggles because the characters learn the same moral over and over again throughout the second act. It took a lot for this kid to learn that war is bad. Every time it seemed that he learned there were problems with war, almost right away, he’d go back to cheering for planes flying overhead, which happens a lot. One could even consider this film to glorify war, excluding the very end. This seems to be a common thing every time Spielberg makes a film about war. His stance on war worked in Amazing Stories, but it feels wrong here, especially having the end goal that it does. For the most part, that character is in the same place at the end that he was in the beginning. If they established the kid’s love for war just a little bit stronger from the very beginning, it would have made the slow change of his views more impactful. More than anything, Steven Spielberg deals with the economic gap. Although I don’t think it was the intended overall moral, Christian Bale’s character that actually changes in those regards. When he sees his parents after everything, his is changed in that way, but not too much in his views on war. He understands that he has everything, as a rich white boy, and that he should use the fact that he’s fortunate to help others.

All in all, I will admit that Empire of the Sun is genuinely pretty good. It does a lot that’s really good. But I just felt that something was wrong the whole time. It was forgettable and long, but, it did have quite a few compelling moments and interesting scenes, making it a fairly decent film. 8.2/10

2017’s The Death of Stalin deals with some extremely heavy subject matter in a brilliant comedic way that reveals the flaws in the system while also subtly showing the connections to our own current system. This isn’t anything new. Making comedic commentary on politics both past and present is nothing new. That being said, I feel that The Death of Stalin does enough to distinct itself from other comedies of its style while also facing some of the similar struggles many do. The cast is made up of a recognizable bunch including Jason Isaace, Steve Buscemi, and Michael Palin, who all give fairly good performances. The film takes a time period that isn’t terribly well known about, the time that Stalin died. This allows some creativity in what the characters do, but as someone who isn’t all that into history, that didn’t matter. In a lot of ways, this is Weekend at Bernie’s but Soviet, and that makes for an interesting premise to say the least.

While I didn’t find myself laughing out loud all that much, Death of Stalin certainly has a unique comedic style, in a way, mixing mockumentary with Python. While I enjoyed that, the mixing is also where I found my biggest problem with the film. The comedy is all over the place, often doing a little bit of just about every style of comedy. This can work, but, with a film this fast paced, it would have been refreshing to see a consistent comedic voice to play throughout. Still, when the comedic moment is just right, it makes for an incredibly enjoyable scene, and overall, most scenes had that. As for the way the film actually looks, it’s quite sharp. Often, it uses a handheld camera, which adds to the chaos of each scene incredibly well, while also immersing the audience in the world of these strange characters. That being said, the looks of the film also have inconsistencies, especially in color. I’m not saying every historically based film needs to have a set color pallet matching the tone of that era, but there should likely be an element of that, which Death of Stalin doesn’t have. To be fair, it does also make up for this with an incredibly Soviet-era soundtrack, making certain scenes even more comedic.

There’s nothing funny about what happened in Soviet Russia… or is there. The Death of Stalin is a very dark comedy that also shines light on the fact that these historical figures, who seem almost fictional nearly 100 years after their rein, are still human with plenty of flaws. It may have inconsistencies, but it is still an incredibly funny and enjoyable watch. 8.4/10

Raising Arizona is the second in the Coen Brother’s long list of films, and the first marked as a comedy. While there are similarities between this and Blood Simple, the distinction is clear, as they find their own voice of storytelling. Most of the jokes in the film work well, this is partially due to the situation of the comedy. However, I found that because it failed to build upon that, there were quite a few problems. Like many comedies, it plugged in this huge dramatic moral. This doesn’t need to happen all the time, but in many comedies, they force these messages down your throat, diminishing the pacing of the film, while also feeling stiff. But, one could make the argue that this isn’t meant to be a full-out comedy. Sure. However, the build up of numerous jokes that were perfect for call backs were set up in the first act of the film, but were never built upon. It is clear that emotional moments are thrown in at the last minute when they take place of a better payoff for the ending of the film.

Nicolas Cage and Holly Hunter bring light to these characters, and I honestly could have watched more of the way their relationship grew. Being that the movie clocks in at just about an hour and a half, there was definitely room to add a bit more comedy. I feel that if they did this, it would also add to making the dramatic half feel as more of a pay-off. It may seem that I’m completely bashing on this movie, but, the truth is that I really did enjoy it. While I didn’t enjoy the ending, the first half hour was easily the most enjoyable. And, as I said, this is all situational. Having the person taking mug shots falling in love with a regular resident of the prison is something right out of a sketch comedy show, and there is plenty of room there to have some comedy, and they do. The idea of good versus evil is an ever-prominent theme throughout. Sometimes though, it does get a little too over the top, bringing in the biker from one of Hi’s dreams. While I didn’t like this plot-point, I must say that on the low budget this was made on, it’s impressive that they pulled off a some high budget looking scenes (for 1987)

Overall, this is a fun comedy that falls to the many pitfalls that many comedies still face, even today. 7.8/10

The Zero Theorem is Terry Gilliam’s answer to the changing times of technology. However, although the sci-fi flick poses some interesting ideas, the poor execution diminishes the potential enjoyment of the film. I’ll start with what I liked. The subject matter it deals with is incredibly relevant, in some ways, it acts as a modern take on Brazil. But, after sprinkling in some mental health references and a very brief look into what the meaning of life is, it becomes its own thing. But, in that is a problem the film faces. It seems that Gilliam tried to fit too much into this one movie, because of this, there was no time to dwell on whatever the lesson was supposed to be, and it couldn’t grasp onto one main problem the character was facing. Speaking of the characters, they are bad. I’ll just say it. They aren’t good, and the acting doesn’t help at all. I liked the guy that played the intern, however, every other character was just so over the top that there was no reason to care for their well-being. Even the main character had fundamental flaws in the way he was written. For example, the film couldn’t decide if he was the smartest person on earth, or someone who can’t even use a computer correctly. This constant tug of war between everything in the movie was frustrating to say the least.

Being that it is a science fiction movie in the future, it does offer an unique look as to what the future world might look like. Sometimes comically. But it takes no visual liberties and the world itself isn’t built on for the first hour. Before that, everything takes place in one room where the same thing happens over and over again. The characters use this strange video game console to solve equations as well. While the idea is interesting, it doesn’t work for the ideas in the story. Everything in the film is much to flashy for where we find the characters at the beginning. When a romantic story line that should have been a sub-plot became the main focus, all of this really cemented for me. Doing this isn’t a good idea in general, but when the relationships between characters isn’t even compelling in the first place, it’s even worse. Personally, it would have worked better if the character solved the zero theorem, finding that human life is meaningless in the beginning, but then goes on to realize that maybe there is more to it than an equation can say. This is what was set up in the beginning, but it is quickly thrown away.

Being that this is this finishes all my Terry Gilliam films, I must say, his latter chunk of movies is incredibly disappointing. The Zero Theorem is a perfect example of this, in some ways, it is reflected into the story. Still, even though certain ideas are intriguing, that doesn’t take away from the problems the movie faces. It’s safe to say that Terry Gilliam has not adapted to the modern age of film making well. 6.2/10

Deadpool, as a superhero movie, is an incredibly unique take on the genre. However, that doesn’t mean it escapes the stereotypical struggles most of these movies face. The movie is a comedy, and I don’t think there is any denying that. Almost all of this comedy is done via masterfully breaking the fourth wall. While this has been done before, quite a few times, deadpool handles this in a way that builds upon the character, and the world, while being comedic insights into what’s happening in the story. While the comedy style isn’t limited to the fourth wall breaks, those jokes probably take up around 75% of the comedy, which is fine by me. Another thing I found interesting is the way the Deadpool subtly borrowed/payed homage to (not completely sure which one) the great comedies of the past, especially Monty Python. From one of the first scenes where Colossus keeps breaking Deadpools limbs, one at a time, but Deadpool keeps coming back, it was clear to see that the creators were huge Python fans. My only real problem with the comedy in this movie is that maybe it was too good for the movie’s own good. What I mean by that, is whenever the movie tried to put us in a serious moment, there was very little actual weight to it, and you just wanted the film to carry on.

So, while the comedy is great, there are those serious moments that I previously mentioned. In these moments, one of my issues is that it follows that bland CGI fighting that the movies are so used to. While it does take liberties through introducing gore, for the most part, these fight scenes were more or less bland. Especially the main villain, Francis. Although, I suppose at times a straight man can be good, that spot works better for Colossus and sometimes Negasonic Teenage Warhead. The film tries to embrace those serious moments by commenting on it later on. However, that doesn’t make up for the fact that they are still there. This one’s just a nitpick, but I think that if there was more visual comedy, or comedy variety in general, I might have been ok with this. However, because the comedy is all one type, which is also fine, makes it so the comedy isn’t as surprisingly new as it could have been, especially later in the film.

Overall, Deadpool is an incredibly funny, charming, and wonderful movie. However, when it tries to be something else, it somewhat falls flat on it’s face… and then regrows it just in time for the next joke. 8.2/10

When going through Spielberg movies, I had marked the Amazing Stories movie onto my schedule. But, being that I couldn’t find the movie anywhere online, I went through the two episodes that Spielberg himself directed. While I wasn’t expecting much, I was still a little disappointed. Overall, it felt like it couldn’t pick a tone for itself. At times, the show was definitely going for an edgier Twilight Zone take, but, I’m assuming due to network restrictions, it never got worse than seeing a shadow of a landlord choking a kids grandpa, lasting a good second. I did expect not to like the show too much, because I’m not the core demographic. There were just a lot of problems I had with it, mostly in terms of tone.

The first episode Spielberg directed was season 1 episode 1, admittedly the most enjoyable of the two. It focuses on a kid and his grandpa as they uncover the mysteries of a train that used to run right through where their new house is. I would say spoilers, but you’ve had 35 years to watch this one. The way that the episode deals with loss is actually kind of neat. The show handles morals of the story extremely well, in both episode. All of that is wrapped up nicely in a bow of the Spielberg magic, which, while I was watching this, I observed something. So much of what I have been calling “the Spielberg charm” is actually John Williams. The score for the show is great, and that goes for every time Williams and Spielberg work together on a project. The platform of TV also allows Steven Spielberg to experiment different ideas which likely couldn’t be turned into a full movie. That’s the beauty of anthology series, it’s an opportunity to try something, as long as it fits the shows overall tone/message. As for my issues with this episode, the acting wasn’t very good, maybe with an exception of the grandpa. The little kid was quite annoying, but not topping Temple of Doom level. Their relationship suffered from the acting a little bit. Also, due to the fact that they tried to deal with loss in the way they did, there was a plot hole as big as the hole in the wall the train caused at the end of the episode.

Now that I realize how long the breakdown of the last episode was, I’ll try to keep this one shorter. The only other episode Spielberg directed is season 1 episode 5, “The Mission.” I didn’t like this episode. It felt like Spielberg tried remaking 1941, which is better left alone. It’s just trying too hard to mean something, this is all due to the poor characters. The biggest problem with an anthology show like this is that the characters never get a chance to become fleshed out. When the characters are fleshed out, it takes up too much of the episode, wasting time. Personally, I found the characters in this episode to be acting like middle schoolers. If they focused more on the weight of war, the story would have been much more intriguing to me, and I’m sure a wider audience.

Overall, I have mostly negative feelings on this Twilight Zone rip-off. But, there is definitely some good in here. The overall premises and the music is great. However, that can’t save it from bad acting, boring characterization, and inconsistent tone. 6.3/10

The Coen brothers are truly a creative force not to be reckoned with, so, I figured I would go through each movie in their filmography and try to figure out how they do it. I’m starting here, with Blood Simple. The movie is overall quite generic. It does take a few liberties a bit later on, but for the most part, it sticks to the safe side. Especially in its slow nature, this is driven by the film only really having one plot-line, and one that was more or less mediocre. That isn’t to say that this film didn’t have things to like in it. There were quite a few shots in here, and cuts for that matter, that I found to be particularly impressive. All driving in the same theme of dealing with having a murder on your hands, and dealing with that guilt (making me think Joel Coen will do a great Macbeth.)

At the beginning, it felt like a very generic 80s crime movie. Down to the soundtrack and the acting, this just reeked of that style of film. Still, as I said, the film did present a few interesting twists later on. These were twists that felt somewhat surprising, while also making sense within the pre-established canon of the story. While these kinds of twists are hard to pull off, they almost always have a stronger reaction than a twist that throws something completely out of nowhere in, that completely does nothing for the sake of the story. Truly, that element is the only redeeming part of the movie. Other than that it’s more or less lacking in a lot of areas, which is to be expected with a directorial debut quite often.

Blood Simple is overall, a fairly generic flick. With many stereotypical beats that occur in this era of crime thrillers. However, the Coen brothers managed to make it worth watching in a sense through certain interesting shots and a few great twists. 7.2/10

Putting this on earlier today, I was worried. The previous two Terry Gilliam movies were, honestly, downright bad. So, it was a pleasant surprise when this one was positively mediocre. In a lot of ways, it even seems like a return to Gilliam’s classic charm. This was evident from the start, when the small traveling theatre makes its first appearance. Live theatre has been a constant theme in all of Gilliam’s work, so it’s interesting to see it again here. Another theme is Alice in the Wonderland: Through the Looking Glass, which Gilliam also tried in Tideland.

Tragically, Heath Ledger died part way through the filming of the movie. But, even though I hate to say it, this did benefit the movie. Rather than completely restarting with a recast, Gilliam switched the actor for Ledger’s original role every once in a while. Although this did cause a few inconsistencies in character, it added to the intrigue and wonder of this world. Speaking of that, the world building is some of the best out of any Gilliam film. Rather than placing it in a completely fantasy universe, Gilliam bases it in a modern city, a landscape we all have experiences with. Although this was a very good choice, it also made it so the movie looked quite bland, a trend through recent Gilliam films. Even in the fantasy parts, the movie had a bland look. Part of that was also due to the over-reliance on CGI at a time where CGI didn’t work terribly well. I personally think that if Terry Gilliam used some classic Python-esque animation, the film would have greatly benefited from this. And at times, it did, but if it was used throughout, it would have allowed for a more consistent style of the imagination sequences. The constant shift in look also contributes to it being incredibly forgettable. There are moments here and there that make it memorable, but, the bland look, writing, and sometimes even acting, make it just ok.

Overall, the movie is fun. To put the plot simply, it’s Terry Gilliam’s version of Inception. However, unlike Inception, it seems like it can’t decide what it is supposed to be. 6.7/10